UPDATE: Thank you so much to each and every one of you who shared your opinion. You have been instrumental in guiding our decision making, and we are pleased to officially announce that Folk Tale will be a sandbox game. After final release, we will be exploring options to add Campaign mode. Multiplayer received the least votes and as such has been taken off the table for now. We shall review that decision much later in the games lifecycle.

We've been doing some research and evalution into how we incorporate the multiplayer elements being discussed in the other thread. It's becoming obvious that as a small team potentially working with limited kickstarter funding we're going to face the tough decision of what to prioritize once the single-player taster demo is released. This discussion assumes that with limited funding we cannot expand the team beyond it's current size.

Here are our options of what to focus development on:

[1] Single player campaign story mode - level based objectives with cut scenes[2] Single player endless Sandbox mode - no levels, few if any cut scenes[3] Multiplayer - fewer art assets, more programmer time

Obviously the long term goal is to add all these modes, but given limited resources and early stage development budget, we're asking your opinion on which you would like us to focus on. Before sharing your thoughts, we'd like to highlight a few facts:

a. Cut scenes in [1] are incredibly time consuming to produce. While they add to the humour and story, they require a considerable amount of artist time that would otherwise be spent on making the in-game experience better. Campaign modes are typically played through once or twice, before players move onto sandbox or multiplayer games. There is therefore reduced longevity compared to options 2 or 3. Cut scenes often get skipped too. That said, humour is currently an important part of Folk Tale.

b. Sandbox mode [2] requires a complete set of player assets ( buildings, characters, items etc ) but far fewer locations of interest than story mode, and without the time consuming cut-scenes.

c. Multiplayer [3] requires a similar amount of assets as sandbox mode [2], no cut scenes, but a considerable amount of programmer time.

We are seeking your answer to the following question:

DO YOU PREFER TO PLAY STRATEGY GAMES ON YOUR OWN, OR DO YOU PREFER TO SLOG IT OUT IN PVP?

As well as answering this question, please feel free to expand on the debate. If you own games like Civilization, think about how you typically play them. Remember, Folk Tale isn't a constant-high paced tactical zerg-fest RTS game like SC2, its closer to say Civilization or SimCity or an RPG game where the player has plenty of time to strategize.

Definately prefer single player over multiplayer due to the fact that this game is a city/god/creator game and multiplayer is in my opinion unnecesary. Look at many games that feature multiplayer but no one plays them anymore. Games like Civ are meant to be played single player and theres really no point in adding multiplayer. Focus more on improving the single player experience. Story in my opinion isn't all that important either. There are many great games out there without any multiplayer such as The Elder Scrolls and the Just Cause series. Don't worry to much about multiplayer because if there arent many people on at once the game won't be as successful. In single player we can play casually and not worry about having to finish a match between another player.

My opinion is 2 -> 1 -> 3. I'll try to explain why; I'm quite a gamer and I've played similar games such as this but the issue with option 3 and 1 is that most of the time, over a period of months the multiplayer would die off and therefore render most of the game useless . This is also applied to a well written story mode, once complete, there isn't much to do anymore, I'm assuming the endless sandbox mode will also exist even if you were to pick option 1 but it wouldn't be as good. So my personal opinion is to pick option 2 because once again, in my personal opinion if you put a lot of work into a endless sandbox mode, and succeed, I would probabaly play this game a ton, and I doubt I'm the only one. I'd definitevely play a lot more if it's targeted for option 2 than option 1 with a 5-10 hour storyline. If it's as good as I think it is, even right now. I'll probably put down at least 50-100 hours minimum.

I prefer 1 and 2 equally and will not focus on multiplayer for 1. I have satellite internet with bandwidth limitations and no other option for other internet. 2. The only time bandwidth limitation is removed is between 12 and 5 a.m. when little amount of people play. 3. PvP focused games I tend to avoid due to the camping the spawn points, people quiting and other bs you deal with online. I agree multiplayer in not a must as mentioned by other posters.

If I had to say i would keep a Multiplayer DLC for later after the game goes live with a good Single player Campaign, and Sandbox. Better yes instead of Sandbox maybe make the sandbox were people/players can make there own "Campaign", this would allow for a larger more diverse community within the game, and even more extended gameplay while new content is being made.

2, 1, 3 Would be the best order that I would say could keep the game interesting, since 2 (sandbox) will allow players to play how they like and maybe even able to add modder/campaign makers support, which could make a worth while and fun time with the game. Although 3 (multiplayer) should be last, yes it would be awesome to play with friends, but it wouldn't be as fun as a Campaign.

1 - 2 - 3why i choose this ?1. this is objection based, real play, better than playing tutorial that some user will skip it2. not enough with object, go sandbox do whatever, spend more time (this need workshop available so member can also give some mod, character, themes, style etc for folktale)3. user who play multiplayer (must) play singleplayer before, reduce retardthank you